Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

Full story: Webbunny tumblelog

Atheism requires as much faith as religion? bearvspuma : The only problem with this rationalization is that ita s assuming all athiests are so because theya re intelligent in the ways of science and reasoning and all people that believe in a form of god are unintelligent.

Comments (Page 7,349)

Showing posts 146,961 - 146,980 of223,346
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“There is no god!”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#152942
Feb 10, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact of the matter is, is that humanity is enslaved in sin.
Due to their rebellion, they continue in that condition.
So the consequence of God having to deal with slavery is not an unexpected situation.
But before you get off on crying out against a moral standard you do not agree with, you first have to explain how you arrived at an absolute moral standard to make a basis for judgement from...
there is no such thing as sin and morality isn't absolute

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#152943
Feb 10, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact you are at war with Him, is plenty enough evidence.
I do not spend my time trying to prove that lizard men disguised as humans exist as it has no credibility.
But that is exactly how we see your claims of the existence of God. The only reason we spend time trying to refute it is that so many people attempt to distort our government and society by their superstitious nonsense. We no longer need to show the non-existence of Zeus or Thor. Yahweh is the same type of myth.

“Don't be so dichotomous.”

Since: Jan 11

Embrace the grey.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#152944
Feb 10, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
Atheism argues that the herd morality is the absolute morality of the current society.
Theism argues that eating shit is healthy and promotes soul growth.
mtimber wrote:
In the dark ages, it was considered by the herd (society), that atheism was heretical and punishable by death.
People in the dark ages, especially theists, were known for eating shit, because they believed it promoted soul growth.
mtimber wrote:
Therefore, atheism has to condone the persecution of atheism by its own moral standard.
Therefore, theism condones the eating of shit by its own moral standard.
mtimber wrote:
The herd decided atheism was immoral, therefore atheism was immoral...
Absurdity unmatched...
The herd of cows shitting outside the church were worshiped as bovine angels, and their shit was eaten by hungry theists, who believed that the shit contained magical powers that would enlarge their souls, by as much as 15%.

Theists especially love bullshit.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#152945
Feb 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Absolute truth is absolutely true.
And absolute vodka is absolutely vodka.

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#152946
Feb 10, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>God is self attesting.
Explain.
mtimber wrote:
All arguments that oppose that are reduced to logical absurdity.
Explain.
mtimber wrote:
Therefore it is obviously true...
False dilemma fallacy.
mtimber wrote:
For example, you argue God doesn't exist and deny He has revealed Himself to you, but in the process have to abandon logic and reasoning.
I do not claim that a god does not exist. I do however deny that the god of the bible does not exist.
mtimber wrote:
Which is self refuting and proves the self attestation of God.
Did you read a book on philosophy? Maybe watch a youtube video on the subject? Look up logical fallacies and see how many you can committed.

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#152947
Feb 10, 2013
 
TheBlackSheep wrote:
I asked you a simple question. What is your definition or what definition are you using?

Aren't you the one who went to the kid's dictionary to get a meaning that suited you? While ignoring the adult meanings.

If you cannot stand up to scrutiny, then sit back down and listen.
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
That seems to be a common definition.
Fire away with our re-definition.:-)
I asked you a simple question. What is your definition or what definition are you using?

“Don't be so dichotomous.”

Since: Jan 11

Embrace the grey.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#152948
Feb 10, 2013
 
Catcher1 wrote:
No, I'm not, Tide.
I'm very intelligent.
Even smart enough to white-sheet the mtimber character.
There's no conversation to be had with someone that brainwashed.

He's a good example of the damage that can be caused by faith based thinking and the system of religion.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#152949
Feb 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
If no ideology can be taken as implicit truth, then making your own does not solve that conundfum...
And if there is no implicit truth in any ideology, then there is no absolute truth that is discoverable.
And life becomes pointless.
There are no absolute truths and there is no conundrum unless you make one.
blacklagoon

Brookline, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#152950
Feb 10, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
You are still not dealing with the point.
Please take the time to read it and think about it, as it is clear you are not doing so at the moment.
If morality is what the "herd" decides, then nothing is absolutely wrong or absolutely right.
And you would have followed the herd all through history.
So you would have supported the inquisition.
You would have supported slavery.
You would have supported every crime that every society ever made, because you are morally bound to do so.
Your morality can never rise any higher or challenge the herd.
Therefore, you can never argue that a different herd acted immorally...
You would have been morally bound to accept the earth was flat during the dark ages.
And would have probably been standing outside Gallileos house with a pitchfork and torch demanding his execution...
Time to start thinking and leave the herd, the herd never gets it right...
And the current herd religion is secular atheism...
The mistake you are making is claiming absolute truth. Absolute right and wrong. There are NO absolutes. If you deal in absolutes then can you say that ABSOLUTELY there is no life beyond our solar system? Further, can you say with ABSOLUTE certainly that any life that exists, beyond our scope of detection, was NOT created by another being? And can you say with ABSOLUTE certainly that the universe we now occupy is NOT infinite, that it does NOT have any boundaries or edges, that is has always existed? And can you say with ABSOLUTE certainly that this present universe is but one of many, and the singularity our universe sprang from was simple a "local event?"

What is evident is that we certainly cannot acquire any moral teachings from the bible. A book that condones genocide, baby murdering, slavery, rape, blood sacrifice, and just plain evil.

Your God decided to reveal himself to mankind some 2,000 years ago. Conservative estimates puts our species on the planet some 150,000--200,000 years ago. I wonder just how did we get along morally for 198,000 years. By your logic we should have completely torn our species to shreds long before your demon God decided it was time to show his evil face.
Lincoln

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#152951
Feb 10, 2013
 
BBSting wrote:
<quoted text>
There are no absolute truths and there is no conundrum unless you make one.
Is
this
your
absolute
truth?

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#152952
Feb 10, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact you are at war with Him, is plenty enough evidence.
I do not spend my time trying to prove that lizard men disguised as humans exist as it has no credibility.
You on the other hand are quite enamored with the:
"God isn't real and I hate Him" argument...
Silly person.

One cannot be at war with, much less hate, that which does not exist.

Pointing out that certain True Believers® are socially stunted (or downright stupid) is not an attack on some mythical deity.

“In the beginning God Created..”

Since: Feb 12

Southern Illinois

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#152953
Feb 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>Stop being such a coward, there are no CONTEMPORARY ACCOUNT OF JESUS OUTSIDE OF THE BIBLE. Now that is a FACT. Any other accounts of Jesus were written decades after his existence. That is also a FACT. Don't be a pussy, now, show me your evidence, and not your holy book, that shows that the Jesus you spastically believe in, existed.
My good Doctor, your statement brings up a interesting thought. If Christ lived and died then somewhere in history there would be a reference to him outside of the bible.

It just so happens there is a Roman historian named Senator Tacitus who referred to Christ and Pontius Pilate written in his book 116. It was written in a reference to a great fire in Rome that burned the city 64 AD.

Thank you for bringing up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Chris...

The Roman historian and senator Tacitus referred to Christ, his execution by Pontius Pilate and the existence of early Christians in Rome in his final work, Annals (written ca. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44.

The context of the passage is the six-day Great Fire of Rome that burned much of the city in AD 64 during the reign of Roman Emperor Nero. The passage is one of the earliest non-Christian references to the origins of Christianity, the execution of Christ described in the Canonical gospels, and the presence and persecution of Christians in 1st-century Rome.

Scholars generally consider Tacitus's reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate to be both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source. Eddy and Boyd state that it is now "firmly established" that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus.

In terms of an overall context, historian Ronald Mellor has stated that the Annals is "Tacitus's crowning achievement" which represents the "pinnacle of Roman historical writing". The passage is also of historical value in establishing three separate facts about Rome around AD 60:(i) that there were a sizable number of Christians in Rome at the time,(ii) that it was possible to distinguish between Christians and Jews in Rome, and (iii) that at the time pagans made a connection between Christianity in Rome and its origin in Judea.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#152954
Feb 10, 2013
 
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
Is
this
your
absolute
truth?
I don't subscribe to absolute truths.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#152955
Feb 10, 2013
 
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
Atheism doesn't "argue" anything. All atheism is is a lack of a belief in a god.
You must be very insecure to need it to mean more so desperately.
I don't accept your definition of atheism.

Atheism, as defined in the Bible:

The fool has said in his heart, there is no God...

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#152956
Feb 10, 2013
 
BBSting wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't subscribe to absolute truths.
That's correct, there's no such thing as god.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#152957
Feb 10, 2013
 
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
My good Doctor, your statement brings up a interesting thought. If Christ lived and died then somewhere in history there would be a reference to him outside of the bible.
It just so happens there is a Roman historian named Senator Tacitus who referred to Christ and Pontius Pilate written in his book 116. It was written in a reference to a great fire in Rome that burned the city 64 AD.
Thank you for bringing up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Chris...
The Roman historian and senator Tacitus referred to Christ, his execution by Pontius Pilate and the existence of early Christians in Rome in his final work, Annals (written ca. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44.
The context of the passage is the six-day Great Fire of Rome that burned much of the city in AD 64 during the reign of Roman Emperor Nero. The passage is one of the earliest non-Christian references to the origins of Christianity, the execution of Christ described in the Canonical gospels, and the presence and persecution of Christians in 1st-century Rome.
Scholars generally consider Tacitus's reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate to be both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source. Eddy and Boyd state that it is now "firmly established" that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus.
In terms of an overall context, historian Ronald Mellor has stated that the Annals is "Tacitus's crowning achievement" which represents the "pinnacle of Roman historical writing". The passage is also of historical value in establishing three separate facts about Rome around AD 60:(i) that there were a sizable number of Christians in Rome at the time,(ii) that it was possible to distinguish between Christians and Jews in Rome, and (iii) that at the time pagans made a connection between Christianity in Rome and its origin in Judea.
Creationism is a fraudulent cult. We don't believe your lies.
blacklagoon

Brookline, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#152958
Feb 10, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Lets test your claim:
Homosexuality is abominable, spiritually, socially and morally, this is absolutely true.
Now what is your reaction to my statement of truth?
Have I "sinned" against humanism.:-)
Will the followers of humanism be offended at this statement and decree I deserve death?
Will they count this as a moral "sin".
You're simply wrong, ONCE again. Don't you get tired of getting your ass kicked over your absolutes?

1.) Homosexuality is NOT abominable, it is to you I'm sure but not a universal claim.

2.) Neither is it socially and morally wrong.

3.) Nor is anything you have just stated, the ABSOLUTE TRUTH. It is simply Your jaded opinion. An opinion dirtied by religious dogma,

Here is some ABSOLUTE facts for you. Homosexuality among the animal kingdom, or which we are apart of, is wide spread. Over 1,500 cases of sam sex behavior has been documented in everything from fruit flies to penguins. There are NO species on the face of the planet that do not display some form of same sex behavior. Fish, reptiles, birds bats, mammals, insects, all display these traits. Now it would appear if you claim that your God is responsible for creating all there is, including every species found o the planet, then he apparently instilled these traits in all of these species, correct? So if your God see's nothing wrong with same sex behavior, what is your problem? I wonder why all these species have been created with same sex behavioral traits, could it be that your God enjoys the same? Just using the reason and logic you wave around so judiciously.

Same sex behavior is not frowned upon in many countries, like the Atheistic countries of Norway, Sweden, and Denmark. Countries that have booted your demon God out and allowed people live happily without your infamous celestial dictator peering down on them.

“In the beginning God Created..”

Since: Feb 12

Southern Illinois

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#152959
Feb 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

A good read about evidence of Christ outside of the Bible.

http://beginningandend.com/jesus-exist-histor...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#152960
Feb 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Several problems here:
1) You haven't defined what it means to be caused.
In particular, the typical *definition* of 'A causes B' is that physical laws, working with initial condition A lead to a later condition B. So two things are required for causality: 1) physical laws, 2) time-so earlier and later make sense.
2) You haven't defined what it means to be an effect.
The only possible definition is 'something that is caused', which makes your claim trivial, but useless.
3) Most effects have more than one cause.
4) The correct statement is "everything that has a cause has a physical cause". That is the statement supported by *all* the evidence.
When you correct your statement, you find that the 'first cause' argument for the existence of God fails miserably.
All effects are caused.

Basic causality, upon which science is based...

You can deny that if you see fit.

In fact you might need to if you want to hold onto your particular views.

In fact, you have to, to maintain your absurd position...:-)

You see error has to deny truth to try to maintain its hold over truth.

So you have no choice but to keep denying even the most basic truths of the universe, to support your error.

Proving the very point I am making.:-)
Thinking

Hounslow, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#152961
Feb 10, 2013
 
No all powerful compassionate god exists.
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't accept your definition of atheism.
Atheism, as defined in the Bible:
The fool has said in his heart, there is no God...

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 146,961 - 146,980 of223,346
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••